1. For dynamic injection of arguments in your data plane, do you use LLMs?
2. What did you find you cannot do yet because of LLM limitations (and not because of lack of third-party integrations)?
3. I haven’t looked closely into your product, but is every “effect” of a workflow something that only the requesting user can see? Is this how you ensure bad or wrong things are not hurting other people or systems that are outside of user’s control?
2. Anything too complex (e.g. 5+ steps) tends to be unreliable. Also, any workflow where potential failure/unexpected behavior is too risky to leave up to an LLM.
3. The only actions we take are with our user's tools, so many workflows are simply organizing their information between their apps. However, e.g. gmails could be sent externally so we have guardrails/sanity checks to mitigate risk there.
What happens right now when the workflow fails mid-way? Do you ensure atomicity or durable execution?
One thing you may focus on is making workflows more durable: Checkpointing and sending to users summaries of last checkpoints when things fail.
The last thing you want a non-tech user (your target customer) is to figure out what’s the state of a failed workflow.